Topic: SFC3 Warp Cores: A Complete Analysis

[Tulmahk]

Here's the analysis for all warp cores of all races, and below an analysis of which empire leads in each category (note this information will most likely change after the patch):

Romulan Warp Cores                           
Average Mass / Output Efficiency   47.88
Average Cost /Output Efficiency   127.7
Average Ouput   66.5
Average Mass   3382.5
Average Cost   8492
Average Health   125.6

Federation Warp Cores
Average Mass / Output Efficiency   43.7
Average Cost /Output Efficiency   129.64
Average Ouput   65.8
Average Mass   3090
Average Cost   8530
Average Health   126.2

Klingon Warp Cores
Average Mass / Output Efficiency   47.29
Average Cost /Output Efficiency   137.57
Average Ouput   55.5
Average Mass   2800
Average Cost   7635
Average Health   106.2

Borg Warp Cores
Average Mass / Output Efficiency   49.03
Average Cost /Output Efficiency   153.29
Average Ouput   58.5
Average Mass   3090
Average Cost   8967.5
Average Health   336

MASS / OUTPUT EFFICIENCY (Lower Number is Better)
#1 Federation (for their mass, Fedration Warp cores produce the most energy)
#2 Klingon
#3 Romulan
#4 Borg

COST / OUTPUT EFFICIENCY (Lower Number is Better)
#1 Romulan (Romulan cores are the most cost effective, for the energy they produce)
#2 Federation
#3 Klingon
#4 Borg

OUTPUT (Higher Number is Better)
#1 Romulan (Romulan cores produce the most power overall)
#2 Federation
#3 Borg
#4 Klingon

MASS (Lower Number is Better)
#1 Klingon (Klingon cores are the lightest / least massive)
#2 Federation & Borg (Surprisingly, the Borg and Federation have the same mass warp cores overall)
#3 Romulan

COST (Lower Number is Better)
#1 Klingon (the Klingons check in with the least expensive warp cores)
#2 Romulan
#3 Federation
#4 Borg

HEALTH (Higher Number is Better)
#1 Borg (the Borg by far have the toughest warp cores -- I think they should be even tougher, though)
#2 Federation
#3 Romulan
#4 Klingon

It is interesting to see the Federation dominating only one category:  Mass / Output Efficiency.
Romulans dominate two categories:  Cost /Output Efficiency and Output
Klingons dominate in two categories, as well:  Mass and Cost.
Borg dominate only one category:  Health

If we weight everything equally, we can assign ranking points thus:

#1 = 4 points; #2 = 3 points; #3 = 2 points; #4 = 1 point

So, we obtain an overall ranking for all the empires' warp cores overall:

#1 Federation = 18
#2 Romulan = 17
#3 Klingon = 15
#4 Borg = 12

Therefore, the Federation has the best warp cores overall, in addition to the most mass / output efficiency.  The fact that the Federation has the best core designers in the Alpha and Beta quadrants acconts for this advantage.

The Romulans with their quantum singularity cores come in a close second, main advantages being total output and cost effectiveness.

The Klingons are a distant third to the Federation, and almost equally behind the Romulans.  When the Romulans developed their quantum singularity cores, this put them up over the klingons in terms of technology.  The Klingons don't value science as do the Romulans and Federation, so this makes sense.  Main advantages here are light, inexpensive cores.

The Borg don't use warp cores for travelling great distances.  Therefore, they've put most of their assimilation efforts into improving transwarp.  Meanwhile, they use their conventional warp core to power systems and travel short distances.  So not very much assimilation effort is being put into improving this hold-over technology, that will eventually be replaced completely by transwarp.  Also, these cores don't have the power drain of shields, making further development of warp technology much less important for the Borg than any other race.  

[SghnDubh]

    Hey Tulmahk -- send this to me for Battleclinic if you want it posted in the Ship Analysis section!!    

[Tulmahk]

That I will, my friend.  I'll eMail you a copy.  If you feel like taking it right off this site, go right ahead.  

[Fornax]

Whoah, stop the presses.  You've just presented a few dependent
variables as if they were independent.  From a statistical perspective,
this invalidates the analysis until removed...unless you're trying to
prove a statistically significant correlation between the variables
(which you are not)

I was going to propose all sorts of stuff and (I think wisely) deleted it.

A more valid approach would be to just rank (same system as below)
the two ratios.  Mass/Power & Cost/Power - which interestingly
yields the same relative rankings (results).  Fed/Rom/Kli/Borg in order.

Now, if you really wanted to do an analysis, you'd go back to each
individual stock warship and evaluate options.  For example, although
there are 10 warp cores available, only the option to add the first 5
will fit into a given stock design...so average ONLY those first 5.

A better analysis would be to only use the average of the stock/default
warp core, one smaller and then up to the maximum that would fit as
this would be a more realistic set of possibilities for a player to choose.
After all, even though a Warbird can mount a Warp-1 core, doesn't mean
that anybody would actually downgrade their capabilities that much to do so.

If I weren't at work, I'd do the latter.  The numbers from that comparison
would be a far better relative ranking of the different empires abilities.


 

[ActiveX]

How about this:

FF: Warp I and II

CL: Warp II, III, IV, and V

CA: V, VI, VII, and VIII

DN: VII, VIII, IX, and X

Now this doesn't allow for outlying variants (such as my Warp I K'Vort going 100), but it does fit each category fairly well...

any thoughts?  

[Tulmahk]

Curious how you didn't mention where you have a problem with my method.  Specifically, which of my conclusions do you disagree with?  And why?

And this is an analysis of warp cores ONLY.  To include ships is simply illogical.  (FYI, one can compare and contrast warp cores or any other system independent of any other system or ship).

I like peer review, but you've not shown me where my mehtod is at fault.  You've offered a different analysis, not a refinement of this one.  

[FINALmasa]

I think he was trying to say that he disagrees with how you weight (or don't) this information.  Prestige is prestige, mass is mass.  What is the conversion rate of prestige>mass?  Also, how much is mass worth on a Romulan DN compared to a Fed one?

This is just abstract to prove the point.  I won't blame you for having an opinion based on statistical information.  

[ActiveX]

First of all, who are you talking to?  

[Fornax]

I'll see if I can't cover this tomorrow.

Really the gripe is about methodology (take a look at your calculated ratios.
Cost/Output is clearly done by dividing the average cost by average output.
But, Mass/Output is not.  I'm betting when you look at your numbers, it will turn out that you calculated a value for each individual reactor, then averaged them.

Second, while I don't think this is a simple evaluation, you've actually duplicated yourself with what are known as dependent variables.

A "dependent variable" is something like your calculated ratio of Cost/Output if and only if you also include the variable separately in your evaluation.  Don't use Cost & Output & Cost/Output as three different rankiing values,  unless it is your intention to give them more weight.  Weighting would be where you figured out the rankings for something like Cost, but deliberately included that ranking 2 or more times because it was a really important variable.

The right answer is to do either the ratio and not use Cost or Output - or vice versa.
-
But, I don't think it's that simple to evaluate warp cores for the races.
So, what I propose again is this.

In order to get a good analysis, you must use realistic numbers.  Nobody is going to put a Level 1 reactor into a Battleship. They can, but it won't be real effective - in fact, the ship almost becomes completely useless except for perhaps warping around the map.

Look at each individual hull - look at the engine that comes on a stock shiplist and get the specs and calculate most of your values.  Then, swap in an engine one size smaller, if possible, and then swap in larger engines until you can't fit anymore.  Most likely, these are all of the viable potential options.  Players *might* reduce warp cores in favor of impulse/thrusters, for example.

From here, the real rankings go into place.
Provide a summary spreadsheet of all engines for each hull with ratios.
Provide an average for each hull (averaging values consistently)
Provide an average for each race (averaging only the engines selected previously)

If you're adept with spreadsheet formulas (I am) - you can setup a lookup table with all engine values, then type in engine types, make it lookup and calculate the required values.  Might be a fun task as it could be reused whenever the raw data changes.  Might even be a good tool to give to server admins when they're looking at tweaking their ships just to give them a quick way to evaluate the numbers as a whole.

Nax

[Fornax]

Took me a little while to do this; mostly it's VBA code to parse the existing data then spit out the results.
Should be easier to use much of the same logic to do the rest of the systems.

Assumptions are:
Stock Warp Engines - ! size smaller and then the largest (plus all intervening engine sizes) that could possibly
fit into the hull design assuming that warp is the priority and ignoring any possible mods for impulse/thrusters.

The averages are grouped by specific hull, and by race (average of all values, not the average of each hull's average)
Using precisely the same named variables above.

Summary by Race
            Power        Cost        Mass      Health         Mass/Output      Cost/Output
Borg    70.07        10279.8    3576.92  379.3           49.42                 147.62
Fed      66.96      8658.62     3175.86   128.13        45.41                  128.16
Kli        57.25       7864.06     2914.06  108.88        48.53                  136.20
Rom    66.35        8425.88    3394.11   124.71        48.91                 126.04

Mass/Output Efficiency   Fed/Kli/Rom/Borg
Cost/Output Efficiency    Rom/Fed/Kli/Borg
Output                             Borg/Fed/Rom/Kli  * R/F/B/K
Cost                                 Kli/Rom/Fed/Borg
Mass                                Kil/Fed/Rom/Borg  * K/F/B/R
Health                              Borg/Fed/Rom/Kli

Minor differences, but noticeable.  The first casualty is Roms do not have the best average output for the engines they can actually use.  Using the same point scale, the total tally is:
      New    Old
Fed   17  :18
Kli     15  :15
Rom  15  :17
Borg 12 :12

The difference in total points in previous is due to there no longer being any ties for any values.

I have these same numbers for all ships in an excel spreadsheet - dumped it to make it easier for others to see.
Wanna look it over?



 

[Semper]

Just a link for a quick overview  SFCIII Easy view  

Best in 1024*768  

[Bossman]

Geez, in a world where time is a rare commodity, you guys sure have plenty of it in stock.  I'm envious!      

[Tulmahk]

Fornax,

Well, looks like we're closer in our opinions than I thought initially.

My numbers gave equal weight to every warp core property, to avoid bias.  If I'm seeing your results correctly, then you've actually weighted yours (your comment on "warp cores Romulans can actually use" tends to indicate this, and is a perfectly valid approach; technically, the Romulans can use all of their warp cores, so it becomes a matter of opinion whether they should, escpecially the X core).

So Fornax, your stuff is just as good, and I like what you've done.  Putting bias in like that isn't a bad idea at all.  I suggest you submit your results to BattleClinic.com as well.  I think the players of this game would benefit from both perspectives on warp cores.

And to those who think this is a waste of time, I'm using this game to sharpen my Excel skills, so guess what?  I'm improving a marketable skill in a fun way (as is Fornax).  Hardly a waste of time, IMHO.  

[Tulmahk]

SghnDubh,

I've sent the Doc and Xls to you at your BattleClinic eMail address.  Let me know if they fail to arrive, or if you have any problems with them.  I hope Fornax submits his as well, as he has some very good things to contribute about assessing warp cores.

Long Live BattleClinic  

[ActiveX]

So you weren't talking to me...kew  

[Fornax]

Sure - sorry I jumped on you.  Just struck me as the wrong way to do it, of course, that's just my opinion.
Really, I'm not sure what the best way is to evaluate engine performance - and actually I made a deliberate effort to use precisely the same values as you, just to be more selective about the inputs (not all engines).

Truthfully, I had no idea when I began whether I would actually turn up a difference in relative rankings.
That and I really didn't look thru the individual ship information yet.  I used MS-Access2K and VBA modules to automate my calculation process, then created a Report to format then exported it to Excel.  The most annoying thing was that the data in the stock spec files wasn't consistently formatted and I kept having to write in methods to handle the oddities.

I'm really curious though, whether the individual ship breakdowns would be more interesting.
Here, for example is the
Defiant:
Avg Of Power: 48 Avg Of Cost 6081.25 Avg Of Mass: 2000 Avg Of Health: 90
Avg Of Mass Ratio: 41.1571450285541   Avg Of Cost Ratio: 126.293808220963
Intrepid:
Avg Of Power: 52.3333333333333 Avg Of Cost: 6666.66666666667 Avg Of Mass: 2233.33333333333
Avg Of Health: 98.6666666666667 Avg Of Mass Ratio: 42.495240990453 Avg Of Cost Ratio:   127.201268104141
K'Tinga:
Avg Of Power: 39 Avg Of Cost: 5450 Avg Of Mass:   1787.5 Avg Of Health: 72   Avg Of Mass Ratio 45.7558139534884
Avg Of Cost Ratio: 139.767441860465
Fek'lhr
Avg Of Power: 52.3333333333333 Avg Of Cost: 7375 Avg Of Mass: 2633.33333333333 Avg Of Health 98.6666666666667 Avg Of Mass Ratio: 49.833163239456   Avg Of Cost Ratio: 140.917167900752

Think I need to reformat some of this.
 

[Tulmahk]

Here's the analysis for all warp cores of all races, and below an analysis of which empire leads in each category (note this information will most likely change after the patch):

Romulan Warp Cores                           
Average Mass / Output Efficiency   47.88
Average Cost /Output Efficiency   127.7
Average Ouput   66.5
Average Mass   3382.5
Average Cost   8492
Average Health   125.6

Federation Warp Cores
Average Mass / Output Efficiency   43.7
Average Cost /Output Efficiency   129.64
Average Ouput   65.8
Average Mass   3090
Average Cost   8530
Average Health   126.2

Klingon Warp Cores
Average Mass / Output Efficiency   47.29
Average Cost /Output Efficiency   137.57
Average Ouput   55.5
Average Mass   2800
Average Cost   7635
Average Health   106.2

Borg Warp Cores
Average Mass / Output Efficiency   49.03
Average Cost /Output Efficiency   153.29
Average Ouput   58.5
Average Mass   3090
Average Cost   8967.5
Average Health   336

MASS / OUTPUT EFFICIENCY (Lower Number is Better)
#1 Federation (for their mass, Fedration Warp cores produce the most energy)
#2 Klingon
#3 Romulan
#4 Borg

COST / OUTPUT EFFICIENCY (Lower Number is Better)
#1 Romulan (Romulan cores are the most cost effective, for the energy they produce)
#2 Federation
#3 Klingon
#4 Borg

OUTPUT (Higher Number is Better)
#1 Romulan (Romulan cores produce the most power overall)
#2 Federation
#3 Borg
#4 Klingon

MASS (Lower Number is Better)
#1 Klingon (Klingon cores are the lightest / least massive)
#2 Federation & Borg (Surprisingly, the Borg and Federation have the same mass warp cores overall)
#3 Romulan

COST (Lower Number is Better)
#1 Klingon (the Klingons check in with the least expensive warp cores)
#2 Romulan
#3 Federation
#4 Borg

HEALTH (Higher Number is Better)
#1 Borg (the Borg by far have the toughest warp cores -- I think they should be even tougher, though)
#2 Federation
#3 Romulan
#4 Klingon

It is interesting to see the Federation dominating only one category:  Mass / Output Efficiency.
Romulans dominate two categories:  Cost /Output Efficiency and Output
Klingons dominate in two categories, as well:  Mass and Cost.
Borg dominate only one category:  Health

If we weight everything equally, we can assign ranking points thus:

#1 = 4 points; #2 = 3 points; #3 = 2 points; #4 = 1 point

So, we obtain an overall ranking for all the empires' warp cores overall:

#1 Federation = 18
#2 Romulan = 17
#3 Klingon = 15
#4 Borg = 12

Therefore, the Federation has the best warp cores overall, in addition to the most mass / output efficiency.  The fact that the Federation has the best core designers in the Alpha and Beta quadrants acconts for this advantage.

The Romulans with their quantum singularity cores come in a close second, main advantages being total output and cost effectiveness.

The Klingons are a distant third to the Federation, and almost equally behind the Romulans.  When the Romulans developed their quantum singularity cores, this put them up over the klingons in terms of technology.  The Klingons don't value science as do the Romulans and Federation, so this makes sense.  Main advantages here are light, inexpensive cores.

The Borg don't use warp cores for travelling great distances.  Therefore, they've put most of their assimilation efforts into improving transwarp.  Meanwhile, they use their conventional warp core to power systems and travel short distances.  So not very much assimilation effort is being put into improving this hold-over technology, that will eventually be replaced completely by transwarp.  Also, these cores don't have the power drain of shields, making further development of warp technology much less important for the Borg than any other race.  

[SghnDubh]

    Hey Tulmahk -- send this to me for Battleclinic if you want it posted in the Ship Analysis section!!    

[Tulmahk]

That I will, my friend.  I'll eMail you a copy.  If you feel like taking it right off this site, go right ahead.  

[Fornax]

Whoah, stop the presses.  You've just presented a few dependent
variables as if they were independent.  From a statistical perspective,
this invalidates the analysis until removed...unless you're trying to
prove a statistically significant correlation between the variables
(which you are not)

I was going to propose all sorts of stuff and (I think wisely) deleted it.

A more valid approach would be to just rank (same system as below)
the two ratios.  Mass/Power & Cost/Power - which interestingly
yields the same relative rankings (results).  Fed/Rom/Kli/Borg in order.

Now, if you really wanted to do an analysis, you'd go back to each
individual stock warship and evaluate options.  For example, although
there are 10 warp cores available, only the option to add the first 5
will fit into a given stock design...so average ONLY those first 5.

A better analysis would be to only use the average of the stock/default
warp core, one smaller and then up to the maximum that would fit as
this would be a more realistic set of possibilities for a player to choose.
After all, even though a Warbird can mount a Warp-1 core, doesn't mean
that anybody would actually downgrade their capabilities that much to do so.

If I weren't at work, I'd do the latter.  The numbers from that comparison
would be a far better relative ranking of the different empires abilities.